User:Nmg20

I'm currently a clinical medical student at King's College London, and am taking advantage of the deluge of work to update some Wikipedia pages as a sort of revision exercise. My first degree was actually in English literature, and I worked in IT for IBM for three years or so after that before arriving at medicine via a psychology diploma and a year's work at UCL in health psychology, mostly working with people with chronic illness.

My main aim in Wikipedia is to try to reference as many disputed claims in articles as possible in as unbiased a way as possible. Like everyone, I have my own biases, but I hope they're a little different from those of the medical stereotype given the humanities background. That said, I'm a firm believer in taking decisions based on well-researched, solidly-analysed evidence, for all that there are problems with funding, publication, and bias intrinsic in that.

Things which I have done at Wikipedia which I have taken pleasure in
How's that for a heading?
 * Getting Electroconvulsive therapy to the state where it's not disputed any more.
 * The hours and hours of work to reference Lung cancer, Smoking ban, and Passive smoking properly. Next: getting rid of the NPOV dispute.
 * Seeing how the Psychophysics article I started in January 2004 has evolved into a full and detailed description of the topic from my handful of sentences.
 * Being able to start the Lewis Wolpert page. He is one of my heroes.
 * Benefits of tobacco smoking:

Useful pages

 * Observations on Wikipedia behaviour
 * Pubmed ID wiki converter
 * Stub types
 * Template_talk:Single_infobox
 * References, particularly Citation templates
 * - for vandals
 * References, particularly Citation templates
 * - for vandals
 * References, particularly Citation templates
 * - for vandals

Things that will make me mistrust your motives
I have very, very little time for those who come to Wikipedia, fly in the face of consensus, claim in their posts to be representative of an unreferenced "scientific community", and mutter darkly that because the consensus view is not their own perhaps Wikipedia is not a productive place for them to spend time.

Links to look at

 * Interview on MMC